Mitt Romney speaks about obstacles at Arizona young single adult gathering

Comments

There is nothing "paradoxical" about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God
making his Son into humble carpenter, as well as God calling a simple farm boy
to be his chosen prophet in the last dispensation, are perfectly consistent with
how he has operated throughout history. God never calls the rich, the powerful,
or the proud to be servants in his kingdom. He calls those who come from next to
nothing and thus will be humble enough to recognize his hand in all things,
instead of taking all the credit for all that they accomplish themselves.

Perhaps this is why Mitt Romney was not allowed to become president of
the United States. He comes from wealth and privilege and is disconnected from
many of the core teachings of the Gospel. Many of his policies and past
statements were directly in contradiction with what General Authorities of the
Church have taught. He cared more about the praise of the world than doing what
was right in the sight of the Lord.

Remember, this is a man who once
denied that revelation has even occurred since Moses. Not someone members of the
Church should be looking up to.

Lilly Munsternetherlands, 00

Jan. 14, 2014 7:25 p.m.

Remember, Romney made his millions destroying the jobs and lives of others. He
didn't CREATE businesses, he gutted them. For his personal profit. He
left behind thousands of Victims. He may be a Hero to SOME Mormons, but he is
not a Hero to We Moral Mormons. He gave us a gigantic Black Eye, and a
reputation of callousness, xenophobia, greed and insolence. He lost, simply
because Americans rejected him completely. Rather than creating photo
opportunities he will NEVER be Cool) he should be giving away some of the
millions.....billions...he stole from others.A Dancing Horse, with million
dollar tax deductions? I would say "shame" but he has none.

BobF2012kitchener, 00

Jan. 14, 2014 11:24 a.m.

As an active member of the Church, and a liberal Democrat, I'm very glad
Mitt Romney wasn't elected. A Romney presidency would have meant more
suffering for the poor (in addition to an increase in the number of poor people
in this country), more wars, and more division. He came across as an elitist
candidate, caring nothing for the poor, and only wanting to further enrich the
already rich. He also changed his stand on major issues, depending on his
audience. I'm sorry to see him speaking to Church groups; I'm sure
that, in time, he'll fade into obscurity as all defeated presidential
candidates eventually do.

michael.jensen369Lethbridge, 00

Jan. 13, 2014 3:20 p.m.

@Stouger, in some ways you may be right, but honestly, don't go there man.
It just stirs up trouble. I'm independent myself, but be careful with
equating whole parties as contrary to the Church. There may be things associated
with certain parts of their platform that are opposed to Christ's
teachings, but brother, be careful.

Mitt Romney was not speaking in
behalf of the Republican party in this setting. He was speaking in behalf of
Mitt Romney, a member of the Church. Harry Reid has done devotionals for members
that are Democrats. So it's happened for members from both parties. Mitt
did not bring up his party or their platform at this function, as far as I can
ascertain from this article. I think that's important to point out.

michael.jensen369Lethbridge, 00

Jan. 13, 2014 3:17 p.m.

From the Church's Newsroom:The Church’s mission is to preach
the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in
all of the many nations in which it is established.The Church does not:Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for
partisan political purposes.Attempt to direct its members as to which
candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether
or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

StougarStafford, VA

Jan. 13, 2014 2:24 p.m.

@airnaut

You find what you look for. Just type in "Monson &
Reid" in google and see the first image that comes up. You might just see a
bonus apostle in the picture for good show.

The LDS church is not
aligned with the Republican party. It is simply aligned with organizations that
promote good values. When a temple recommend interview question is "Do you
support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings
or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints," you can probably see why few would be
Democrats. There morals are not in line with the church.

airnautEverett, 00

Jan. 13, 2014 12:30 p.m.

Jon1Arlington, VAI am sick and tired of one of the underlying themes
in Mormon culture that you can only be a good and true member of the church if
you are a card carrying Republican. The comments thus far have degenerated into
the typical right wing harangue. Some of us LDS members find this anything but
Christ like.

8:14 a.m. Jan. 13, 2014

============

Agreed.

BTW -- I haven't seen any Apostles running
around speaking with Sen. Harry Reid.

Picking Political sides is
dangerous.[Ask Catholics how they felt about Pope Pius XII shmoozing
around with Hitler.]

GildasLOGAN, UT

Jan. 13, 2014 11:50 a.m.

It sounds as though the YSA Conference address kept on a non-partisan plane; I
hope so.Mitt's demeanor and composure are good points. However, I
wish to answer some things opined on this thread with some points of my own. I
don't know who said these things and it's not worth going back to
check as it is not personal with me; I care about the issues and hope I allow
all men the same right to their opinions as I have to mine.

I think
it not at all proven that Mitt would have made a good president, nor that he
would have achieved national unity, nor that he would have reduced the deficit
markedly. Mitt seems a nice man and tries to be a good man. His recent
handling of partisan mockery of his having a colored boy in his family was
classy; he handled it well.

Yet he is divisive (contempt for honest
millions who earnings too miniscule for income TAX; hostility to foreign nations
even those traditionally allied to the USA) and his increasing the military to
600,000 men and his likely increase of military involvement would not help the
deficit.

laVerl 09St Johns, AZ

Jan. 13, 2014 9:26 a.m.

I'm basically relieved that Romney didn't get elected. My reason is
based on the fact that most political success requires compromise on issues and
sometimes that leads to compromise on moral issues. And to complicate matters,
the President of the US is also the Commander in Chief of the military, which
has become the police force of the world. This venue has shown that the
President of the US has been become more and more a "puppet" figure in
world affairs as world-wide big banking interests have become the policy
maker.As it now stands, Romney is a hero who stood for the "good"
in America. If he had won, I'm afraid he would have been compromised or
assassinated.

Jon1Arlington, VA

Jan. 13, 2014 8:14 a.m.

I am sick and tired of one of the underlying themes in Mormon culture that you
can only be a good and true member of the church if you are a card carrying
Republican. The comments thus far have degenerated into the typical right wing
harangue. Some of us LDS members find this anything but Christ like.

NeilTClearfield, UT

Jan. 13, 2014 8:11 a.m.

No doubt Mitt Romney is a good man. Unfortunately I was disappointed in his
campaign. He governed MA as a moderate and tried to for President as a tea
party conservative. The Republican party has been taken over by extremists who
hate President Obama. They have demonized him in the most shameful way. Many
view The Republican party as the anti-Obama party. I still voted for Mitt and
hoped he would win. I don't like President Obama. I just can't bring
myself to hate someone over political differences. Romney was never able to
connect with the poor, minorities, and women. America is politically polarized
and it not all Obama's fault. Labeling 47% of the country as government
free-loaders didn't help his campaign. I wish Republicans would stop
demonizing the poor, immigrants, and minorities and focus on being more
inclusive.

EsquireSpringville, UT

Jan. 13, 2014 6:10 a.m.

@ Jack, I get your point, but I am quite sure my comments apply and suggest you
think it through. As for the campaign, I had prior experience with Romney, and
as I considered all the facts and the things being said, it was my conclusion
that he was not suited to be President, even though he is a talented person.
His talents and the demands of the office were not a good match. This does not
mean he is not a good man - I know he is. But that does not mean he should be
President, and I think he knew it.

vidottsenPayson, UT

Jan. 12, 2014 10:33 p.m.

I don't know if the country would have unified more under Mitt, but I do
know he would have given everything he had to try to do so. I think the LDS
church would have become an "Achilles Heel" for the opposition to go
against, bringing up every supposedly "new" bit of information to make
his faith look strange and bizarre. However, ignoring that issue, Mitt would
have quietly worked in the background, working across the aisle to bring some
semblance of honorable resolutions to health care, unemployment (including under
employment), immigration, military strength, and world leadership. I think he
would have had a brilliant cabinet that looked like a cross section of the
country to tackle real issues. In other words he would have acted like an
executive and not a perpetual campaigner.

BrentBotSalt Lake City, UT

Jan. 12, 2014 10:02 p.m.

Shaun, The country is polarized because of the current
administration's far-left socialistic agenda. Mitt would have steered the
government to greater efficiency and lowering of the deficit - who can object to
that? Furthermore, Mitt had great success in dealing with an opposition which
had overwhelming majorities in the Massachusetts legislature.

JackAurora, CO

Jan. 12, 2014 9:13 p.m.

@Esquire,I don't think you get the point of the article. Mr Romney
used his experience to illustrate his point, as I am sure you use your
experience to make your pints of discussion. He is allowed to do that, he
experienced it. From your comments, I will guess that you did not like him as a
candidate, it doesn't make his remarks to the conference any less true.

@Shaun,Maybe Mitt would have worked with both sides of the aisle
to bring consensus, like he has done before. Maybe he has some experience in
reconciling groups that would have been useful in slowing the advance of the
bitter rancor and partisanship so evident in Congress.....just a thought.

jscmomof4Zebulon, NC

Jan. 12, 2014 3:28 p.m.

Mitt Romney would have been the best President this nation has known! I pray he
will run again! What could have been in 2012, can still be in 2016! Please
consider running again, Mitt, please!!!! #DraftRomney

ShaunSandy, UT

Jan. 12, 2014 10:58 a.m.

@brentbot. Why do you think this country would be united and not polarized? If
Mitt did win but everything stayed the same congressional wise he still would of
had a divided congress.

So are you implying that democrats would of
worked with Romney for the greater good?

faniwj, UT

Jan. 12, 2014 10:06 a.m.

The Romneys are awesome people!

Carol P. WarnickEphraim, Utah

Jan. 12, 2014 9:03 a.m.

I always wonder why people can't see people as I see them. And I think
"why can't people vote from their heart."? But life isn't that
way. There are too many "wants" and "needs" that seem to get in
the way of the heart and if someone is rich and you are poor shades your
oppinion.

The world would be a better place if he listened more to
the heart. My head and heart told me that Mitt Romney was a good man, a good
leader, a good American that had much to offer our country. But it wasn't
to be until hearts were softened so they could see as I see and believe as I
believe.

BrentBotSalt Lake City, UT

Jan. 12, 2014 8:11 a.m.

Our country would be a much different and better place if Mitt had won. We
would not be polarized, but rather a united country

EsquireSpringville, UT

Jan. 12, 2014 8:07 a.m.

While there may be some good messages here, what this event and this article do
is mix politics and religion. By a powerful inference, the connection between
the Republican party and the LDS Church. I suspect that most church members are
tone deaf on this issue.